John Andrew Welden Accused Of Killing Girlfriend's Fetus By Trickery

[MavsSuperFan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/john-andrew-welden-kill-girlfriend-fetus_n_3284959.html

[QUOTE]TAMPA, Fla.

[Immortal Bum]

sounds like feminist bullshit. women really disgust me most times.

[chosen_one6]

The baby is inside of the mother for 9 months. That's why she gets to choose.

[plowking]

The baby is inside of the mother for 9 months. That's why she gets to choose.

It doesn't have to be if she gets rid of it.

[joe]

Because the fetus is in the woman's body. Nobody can force you to get unwanted surgery, right? Switch it around and imagine if men gave birth instead of woman. If you were against abortions, would it be fair for the female to force you to get one?

The obvious retort is the correct one.. don't get anyone pregnant in the first place if you aren't ready for a kid! Especially if you're a man.

[joe]

The idea that fathers should be forced to pay child support is ridiculous to begin with. It's the womans responsibility to mate with a man who will support her. When did it become the responsibility of judges and politicians to enforce that? If a woman sleeps with a bum guy who walks out on his kid, that's her problem. Without the laws I'm sure she'd be a little slower to sleep with random slobs off the street.

[bmulls]

The baby is inside of the mother for 9 months. That's why she gets to choose.

Yeah, and then the father is stuck paying child support for a kid he never wanted for 18 years.

As a man you should be able to go on record with the county or state or whatever before the baby is born and say that you wanted an abortion and the mother refused. Then you are legally off the hook for child support.

[MJ(Mean John)]

Yeah, and then the father is stuck paying child support for a kid he never wanted for 18 years.

As a man you should be able to go on record with the county or state or whatever before the baby is born and say that you wanted an abortion and the mother refused. Then you are legally off the hook for child support.


That would have saved me a pretty penny

[chosen_one6]

Yeah, and then the father is stuck paying child support for a kid he never wanted for 18 years.

As a man you should be able to go on record with the county or state or whatever before the baby is born and say that you wanted an abortion and the mother refused. Then you are legally off the hook for child support.

If you're willing to have sex then you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of the potential outcomes.

"As a man..."

Being a MAN means taking responsibility for your actions. :facepalm

[MavsSuperFan]

The baby is inside of the mother for 9 months. That's why she gets to choose.

I completely support a woman's right to choose. If she wants to abort, then abort, if she wants to have the baby, then have the baby. Her body, her choice. You have misunderstood my point. I support legal male abortion, which is the right of men to opt out of the legal and financial responsibilities of fatherhood. A woman's right to choose can co-exist with a man's right to choose.

A woman can prevent motherhood via abortion or adoption. Men are forced to pay child support.

Abortion is often motivated by social reasons rather than medical reasons. I have know women who have aborted because they just got promoted and didn't want to go on maternity leave at a critical point in their careers, because they were in a new relationship, because they didnt want the father to have a long term role in their lives, because the pregnancy was the result of them cheating on their husband, etc. I know a woman who chose to have an abortion when she became pregnant while her husband was deployed in afghanistan. I am not judging her (we are all humans) just pointing out that abortion is often motivated by social reasons.

Women are given the choice of when to become parents. This is awesome. This choice should be extended to men.

To get personal I have a friend who got his girlfriend pregnant and didn't want to have a baby. They broke up and she made the choice to have the baby. My friend was not ready to be a father. The child support payments lower his quality of life, and fatherhood has limited his employment prospects and relationships with other women. Why is it ok for a major decision like whether to become a parent or not made for a man, but not ok force women to become mothers?

[chosen_one6]

[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]I completely support a woman's right to choose. If she wants to abort, then abort, if she wants to have the baby, then have the baby. Her body, her choice. You have misunderstood my point. I support legal male abortion, which is the right of men to opt out of the legal and financial responsibilities of fatherhood. A woman's right to choose can co-exist with a man's right to choose.

A woman can prevent motherhood via abortion or adoption. Men are forced to pay child support.

Abortion is often motivated by social reasons rather than medical reasons. I have know women who have aborted because they just got promoted and didn't want to go on maternity leave at a critical point in their careers, because they were in a new relationship, because they didnt want the father to have a long term role in their lives, because the pregnancy was the result of them cheating on their husband, etc. I know a woman who chose to have an abortion when she became pregnant while her husband was deployed in afghanistan. I am not judging her (we are all humans) just pointing out that abortion is often motivated by social reasons.

Women are given the choice of when to become parents. This is awesome. This choice should be extended to men.

To get personal I have a friend who got his girlfriend pregnant and didn't want to have a baby. They broke up and she made the choice to have the baby. My friend was not ready to be a father. The child support payments lower his quality of life, and fatherhood has limited his employment prospects and relationships with other women. Why is it ok for a major decision like whether to become a parent or not made for a man, but not ok force women to become mothers?

[MavsSuperFan]

If you're willing to have sex then you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of the potential outcomes.

"As a man..."

Being a MAN means taking responsibility for your actions. :facepalm

Laws need to be fair to all adults. Current laws allow females to choose when the become a mother via abortion and adoption. Men have this choice made for them and are saddled with child support payments.

We need legalized male abortion, which is the right of men to choose to opt out of the financial responsibilities and burdens of fatherhood. A woman's right to choose should exist alongside a man's right to choose. It is only fair.

[chosen_one6]

Laws need to be fair to all adults. Current laws allow females to choose when the become a mother via abortion and adoption. Men have this choice made for them and are saddled with child support payments.

We need legalized male abortion, which is the right of men to choose to opt out of the financial responsibilities and burdens of fatherhood. A woman's right to choose should exist alongside a man's right to choose. It is only fair.

Nope, doesn't matter if you think it's fair or not. Laws also are not fair. This is a WOMENS RIGHTS issue. Men don't carry the child nor do they raise it for the majority of it's life. There are so many men that run away and aren't held accountable that it's sad.

With your logic, a man could go around and impregnate 10 women and because he can't support children due to him being a deadbeat and an idiot, then he gets let off the hook. Your opinion is clearly biased.

[MavsSuperFan]

Was he held against his will when he stuck his d*ck inside of her with no condom? No? Then he needs to nut up and be a man. There is no gray area in this matter. Just because your friend was an idiot doesn't mean that he should get to decide what a woman should do with her body.

If she wants to have the baby that is her right. Her body, her choice. He should have the right to opt out of the legal and financial responsibilities/burdens of fatherhood. Sex is natural and human. I would never tell a woman she should have kept her legs shut, and hate that it is ok to tell a man he should have kept it in his pants. Both of these people are consenting adults. The difference is she had the choice after the fact of whether she would incur the burdens of parenthood and he as a man was denied this right.

A woman's right to choose to be a mother can and should co-exist with a man's right to choose to be a father. Women can choose to abort the fetus or give the baby up for adoption. Men are forced to pay child support, this is intrinsically unfair.

And yes, abortion is at least partially about preventing motherhood. Many women choose abortion primarily because they are unprepared to be mothers, rather than medical reasons.

[chosen_one6]

If she wants to have the baby that is her right. Her body, her choice. He should have the right to opt out of the legal and financial responsibilities/burdens of fatherhood. Sex is natural and human. I would never tell a woman she should have kept her legs shut, and hate that it is ok to tell a man he should have kept it in his pants. Both of these people are consenting adults. The difference is she had the choice after the fact of whether she would incur the burdens of parenthood and he as a man was denied this right.

A woman's right to choose to be a mother can and should co-exist with a man's right to choose to be a father. Women can choose to abort the fetus or give the baby up for adoption. Men are forced to pay child support, this is intrinsically unfair.

And yes, abortion is at least partially about preventing motherhood. Many women choose abortion primarily because they are unprepared to be mothers, rather than medical reasons.

Condoms and birth control were invented so that people could have sex with very minimal risk. Did your friend use protection? Because, you know, that's a choice too.

[MavsSuperFan]

Nope, doesn't matter if you think it's fair or not. Laws also are not fair. This is a WOMENS RIGHTS issue. Men don't carry the child nor do they raise it for the majority of it's life. There are so many men that run away and aren't held accountable that it's sad.

With your logic, a man could go around and impregnate 10 women and because he can't support children due to him being a deadbeat and an idiot, then he gets let off the hook. Your opinion is clearly biased.

Then you support discriminatory laws. Women are give the right to choose whether they become parents or not. This is awesome. All the stats are clear, women who are unprepared for motherhood, ruin their lives if they have kids. Eg. failing to complete higher education, poor employment prospects, young people tend to avoid single parents, etc. Women who choose to prevent motherhood until they are ready do much better than women who dont.

Men should also be given this right. Parenthood is a major commitment and should be a human right whether you become one or not.


There are so many men that run away and aren't held accountable that it's sad.

Child support payments are legally mandated, There are legal and financial consequence to not paying them. I know men still refuse to pay, but they are ruining their lives. A low credit score alone will prevent you from a lot of options in life. You can't prevent criminals, you can only set the laws.


With your logic, a man could go around and impregnate 10 women and because he can't support children due to him being a deadbeat and an idiot, then he gets let off the hook. Your opinion is clearly biased.

Those women have the right to terminate the pregnancy or to give the baby up for adoption. Every single mother in America made the choice to become a mother, men deserve that right too.

[bmulls]

Was he held against his will when he stuck his d*ck inside of her with no condom? No? Then he needs to nut up and be a man. There is no gray area in this matter. Just because your friend was an idiot doesn't mean that he should get to decide what a woman should do with her body.

You're a complete moron dude. This has nothing to do with telling women what to do with their own bodies. The point is if a woman wants to keep a baby but the father wants an abortion then the father should not be legally required to pay child support.

[chosen_one6]

Then you support discriminatory laws. Women are give the right to choose whether they become parents or not. This is awesome. All the stats are clear, women who are unprepared for motherhood, ruin their lives if they have kids. Eg. failing to complete higher education, poor employment prospects, young people tend to avoid single parents, etc. Women who choose to prevent motherhood until they are ready do much better than women who dont.

Men should also be given this right. Parenthood is a major commitment and should be a human right whether you become one or not.



Child support payments are legally mandated, There are legal and financial consequence to not paying them.



Those women have the right to terminate the pregnancy or to give the baby up for adoption. Every single mother in America made the choice to become a mother, men deserve that right too.

No. I support womens rights laws, like the ones that allow them to control what they do with their body. This issue is really cut and dry, and why you're trying so hard to show that men shouldn't have to take responsibility for something they did is beyond me. It could just be because you want to support your friend that made the stupid decision of having sex without a condom and now is paying for the consequences. Or maybe it's something else. Whatever is fueling your thought process though, you're clearly out of touch on this issue.

[MavsSuperFan]

Condoms and birth control were invented so that people could have sex with very minimal risk. Did your friend use protection? Because, you know, that's a choice too.

Ya they were both idiots, no argument from me on this point. After the fact that pregnancy has occurred is when it becomes unfair.

[MavsSuperFan]

No. I support womens rights laws, like the ones that allow them to control what they do with their body. This issue is really cut and dry, and why you're trying so hard to show that men shouldn't have to take responsibility for something they did is beyond me. It could just be because you want to support your friend that made the stupid decision of having sex without a condom and now is paying for the consequences. Or maybe it's something else. Whatever is fueling your thought process though, you're clearly out of touch on this issue. It is not for you to decide what one should do with their body.

I have no interest in controlling a woman's body. If she wants to abort than she should. If she wants to have the baby than she should. I am pro choice.

Men should be given the choice of whether or not they are saddled with child support payments.


This issue is really cut and dry, and why you're trying so hard to show that men shouldn't have to take responsibility for something they did is beyond me.

The woman wasn't raped, she was an adult as well. This is something they both did. The difference is the female has a choice to opt out. Eg. abortion or adoption. Men are forced to pay child support.

Second of all I have the ability to empathize. I would never force a woman to incur the financial obligations of motherhood. Why is it ok to force a man to incur the financial obligations of fatherhood?

[chosen_one6]

I have no interest in controlling a woman's body. If she wants to abort than she should. If she wants to have the baby than she should. I am pro choice.

Men should be given the choice of whether or not they are saddled with child support payments.



The woman wasn't raped, she was an adult as well. This is something they both did. The difference is the female has a choice to opt out. Eg. abortion or adoption. Men are forced to pay child support.

Second of all I have the ability to empathize. I would never force a woman to incur the financial obligations of motherhood. Why is it ok to force a man to incur the financial obligations of fatherhood?

Because raising a child on your own is something that no one should go through, regardless of gender.

How would you like it if someone f*cked you and then left you with 18 years of raising a child? Then you have to deal with the emotional stress of debating whether you want to keep a life or take it away. You can't comprehend what that feels like. Do you know how much it costs to raise a child? Well over a million dollars. Child support payments ARE NOTHING in comparison. Men should consider themselves lucky that they don't have to pay the actual amount.

[Meticode]

The idea that fathers should be forced to pay child support is ridiculous to begin with. It's the womans responsibility to mate with a man who will support her. When did it become the responsibility of judges and politicians to enforce that? If a woman sleeps with a bum guy who walks out on his kid, that's her problem. Without the laws I'm sure she'd be a little slower to sleep with random slobs off the street.
You have a ton of generalization here. Also you come off extremely selfish.

[MavsSuperFan]

Because raising a child on your own is something that no one should go through, regardless of gender.

How would you like it if someone f*cked you and then left you with 18 years of raising a child? Then you have to deal with the emotional stress of debating whether you want to keep a life or take it away. You can't comprehend what that feels like. Do you know how much it costs to raise a child? Well over a million dollars. Child support payments ARE NOTHING in comparison. Men should consider themselves lucky that they don't have to pay the actual amount.

Child support payments can be excessive. A lot of women don't use the full amount on the child and use it to buy stuff for themselves.

If I was a woman it wouldn't be that I got ****ed. I would have either been raped, or consensually ****ed someone. I wouldn't be a victim if it was consensual. Secondly I would rationally assess my circumstances. If I wasn't financially prepared for a child I would get an abortion. The choice of adoption is also open. No female in America is ever forced to raise a child alone. She can always give the child up for adoption or abort the fetus. Men are the only ones forced by the law to pay child support for unwanted children.

[chosen_one6]

Child support payments can be excessive. A lot of women don't use the full amount on the child and use it to buy stuff for themselves.

If I was a woman it wouldn't be that I got ****ed. I would have either been raped, or consensually ****ed someone. I wouldn't be a victim if it was consensual. Secondly I would rationally assess my circumstances. If I wasn't financially prepared for a child I would get an abortion. The choice of adoption is also open. No female in America is ever forced to raise a child alone. She can always give the child up for adoption or abort the fetus. Men are the only ones forced by the law to pay child support for unwanted children.

We will agree to disagree.

[IamRAMBO24]

Yeah, and then the father is stuck paying child support for a kid he never wanted for 18 years.

As a man you should be able to go on record with the county or state or whatever before the baby is born and say that you wanted an abortion and the mother refused. Then you are legally off the hook for child support.

It's a life we are talking about. You need to take care of your own sperm. Deadbeat dads are losers. If you don't want to pay child support, then don't have a kid. It's really that simple. I feel no sympathy for the guys who have to pay child support the same way I don't feel sorry for drunk drivers in a car wreck. Both situations can be avoided if you take the right precautions.

[IamRAMBO24]

Ya they were both idiots, no argument from me on this point. After the fact that pregnancy has occurred is when it becomes unfair.

Saying you have to pay child support as being unfair is the same thing as saying a drunk driver going to prison, paying a hefty fine is unfair. Both are mistakes; both are without intent; but the thing is, both can be avoided. If you don't want a kid, use a condom. Don't give me this bullsh*t using a condom is not entirely fool proof; it sure is a lot better than not using one.

[TheMan]

If a dude doesn't want to have kids and wants to bone chicks, put on a gaddam rubber. They don't break unless you're hung like Blackzilla and admit it, you ain't:oldlol:

[MavsSuperFan]

If a dude doesn't want to have kids and wants to bone chicks, put on a gaddam rubber. They don't break unless you're hung like Blackzilla and admit it, you ain't:oldlol:

why is all the responsibility put on the man? where is fairness under the law

[MavsSuperFan]

Saying you have to pay child support as being unfair is the same thing as saying a drunk driver going to prison, paying a hefty fine is unfair. Both are mistakes; both are without intent; but the thing is, both can be avoided. If you don't want a kid, use a condom. Don't give me this bullsh*t using a condom is not entirely fool proof; it sure is a lot better than not using one.

it is not fair because a woman has the ability to avoid the financial and legal penalties of parenthood via abortion and adoption. Men have no such choice in the matter and are automatically obligated to pay child support based on the woman's choice. It is unfair and a clear example of gender discrimination.

[longhornfan1234]

it is not fair because a woman has the ability to avoid the financial and legal penalties of parenthood via abortion and adoption. Men have no such choice in the matter and are automatically obligated to pay child support based on the woman's choice. It is unfair and a clear example of gender discrimination.


This sentence made me change my mind about this issue. Props :cheers:

[TheMan]

why is all the responsibility put on the man? where is fairness under the law
Simple, don't want kids, don't fukk but obviously no wants that so put a jimmy on.

It's not that complicated:facepalm

[MavsSuperFan]

It's a life we are talking about. You need to take care of your own sperm. Deadbeat dads are losers. If you don't want to pay child support, then don't have a kid. It's really that simple. I feel no sympathy for the guys who have to pay child support the same way I don't feel sorry for drunk drivers in a car wreck. Both situations can be avoided if you take the right precautions.

Women are given the right to choose when it is time to become a mother. The responsible ones utilize abortion and adoption when necessary to avoid motherhood before they are financially ready. This is in their best interests.

Men are not given this right to choose. When a woman decides unilaterally to have a child, she obligates the man to pay child support. No one should be able to obligate another human being to that kind of financial commitment. I fully support the right of a woman to get an abortion or to carry the pregnancy to term. However that shouldn't entitle her to the money of the man. He should also be given a choice.

Males need the option of forfeiting their legal and financial obligations of fatherhood. In essences is its like an adoption in that men are given the right to give up an unwanted child. Women already have this right. Why do you insist on crippling men with the financial burden of a child before he is prepared for it?

[MavsSuperFan]

Simple, don't want kids, don't fukk but obviously no wants that so put a jimmy on.

It's not that complicated:facepalm

You are completely missing my point. I want fairness under the law. I want intellectual consistency. I could give a **** about whether a person used a condom or not. (Although side note aren't there stories of groupies poking holes in the condoms of rock stars to get pregnant, and fishing condoms out of the trash.) (but this isnt my main point)

Once pregnancy occurs, women are given 2 chances to end their financial obligation if they aren't prepared for motherhood. they can abort the fetus or they can give the child up for adoption.

Men deserve the choice of whether to be fathers after the pregnancy occurs. It is the same choice women have. Fatherhood before a male is financially ready for it can be as devastating as motherhood before a woman is financially ready for it is. Men should be given the option of forfeiting their rights to the child and along with it the legal and financial obligations. This would be similar to a mother giving a child up for adoption.

If you support adoption, which I do, give me an intellectual argument against my proposal.

[TheMan]

You are completely missing my point. I want fairness under the law. I want intellectual consistency. I could give a **** about whether a person used a condom or not. (Although side note aren't there stories of groupies poking holes in the condoms of rock stars to get pregnant, and fishing condoms out of the trash.) (but this isnt my main point)

Once pregnancy occurs, women are given 2 chances to end their financial obligation if they aren't prepared for motherhood. they can abort the fetus or they can give the child up for adoption.

Men deserve the choice of whether to be fathers after the pregnancy occurs. It is the same choice women have. Fatherhood before a male is financially ready for it can be as devastating as motherhood before a woman is financially ready for it is. Men should be given the option of forfeiting their rights to the child and along with it the legal and financial obligations. This would be similar to a mother giving a child up for adoption.

If you support adoption, which I do, give me an intellectual argument against my proposal.
I see your points and agree to an extant but laws aren't perfect and never will be. It's as simple as don't fukk around or at least protect yourself if you don't want kids. You don't need a law to protect you from unwanted kids, take responsibility.

[MavsSuperFan]

I see your points and agree to an extant but laws aren't perfect and never will be. It's as simple as don't fukk around or at least protect yourself if you don't want kids. You don't need a law to protect you from unwanted kids, take responsibility.

Basically you are justifying a double standard. There was a time in this country in the south where black men could be arrested just for being unemployed, and subjected to forced labor and conditions arguably worse than slavery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yHAEu2N024

That would never have happened to a white man. That was an extreme example of a double standard.


It's as simple as don't fukk around or at least protect yourself if you don't want kids. You don't need a law to protect you from unwanted kids, take responsibility.

And yet women are protected from unwanted kids by the law. Women can unilaterally decide to abort a child or give it up for adoption. This makes sense, forcing her to raise children before she is ready for it is detrimental to her, the child and society.

But we don't extend this choice to men. Men aren't allowed to choose after pregnancy occurs. It is a double standard and should be fixed. Laws aren't perfect, but as a society we should be constantly striving to improve them.

[IamRAMBO24]

Women are given the right to choose when it is time to become a mother. The responsible ones utilize abortion and adoption when necessary to avoid motherhood before they are financially ready. This is in their best interests.

Men are not given this right to choose. When a woman decides unilaterally to have a child, she obligates the man to pay child support. No one should be able to obligate another human being to that kind of financial commitment. I fully support the right of a woman to get an abortion or to carry the pregnancy to term. However that shouldn't entitle her to the money of the man. He should also be given a choice.

Males need the option of forfeiting their legal and financial obligations of fatherhood. In essences is its like an adoption in that men are given the right to give up an unwanted child. Women already have this right. Why do you insist on crippling men with the financial burden of a child before he is prepared for it?

Your premise is fallacious because you are assuming that the law was put in place to punish men who don't want to care for a child, sure there were men in this position, but the law was meant for men who consent to having a child but when the going gets tough, they chooose not to support the child.

I don't know where your morals stand, but where I come from, if you breed a kid, you support that kid even if you don't want to. If you don't think you can take care of a kid, then grow some balls and get a real job. That kid is going to grow up all f*cked up just because his daddy is too much of a coward to take care of him. He's going to come find you one day and call you a loser for abandoning him; there's no escaping that, so even if you don't want the kid, he's still got love for you no matter what. That's unconditional sh*t; you can't f*ck with that, so just be a man and give him the support he needs. Your sperm; your responsibility. Period.

Your argument would hold water if there weren't too many dead beat dads around and all agreements were written with consent between the man and the woman.

[tpols]

You're a complete moron dude. This has nothing to do with telling women what to do with their own bodies. The point is if a woman wants to keep a baby but the father wants an abortion then the father should not be legally required to pay child support.
I understand the logic.. Making it fair on both sides.. But she's the one who has to get the baby torn out of her physically. She's the one who will cry over that experience and feel guilt for the rest of her life.

While we get to skip away scot free.

A little unfair if you ask me.

[MavsSuperFan]

Your premise is fallacious because you are assuming that the law was put in place to punish men who don't want to care for a child, sure there were men in this position, but the law was meant for men who consent to having a child but when the going gets tough, they chooose not to support the child.

I don't know where your morals stand, but where I come from, if you breed a kid, you support that kid even if you don't want to. If you don't think you can take care of a kid, then grow some balls and get a real job. That kid is going to grow up all f*cked up just because his daddy is too much of a coward to take care of him. He's going to come find you one day and call you a loser for abandoning him; there's no escaping that, so even if you don't want the kid, he's still got love for you no matter what. That's unconditional sh*t; you can't f*ck with that, so just be a man and give him the support he needs. Your sperm; your responsibility. Period.

Your argument would hold water if there weren't too many dead beat dads around

If you consented to having a child then of course you are responsible for it. I have never argued otherwise. My problem is with the double standard regarding unwanted children when it comes to female parents vs male parents.

Females that don't want kids- Full and unilateral right to choose to terminate the pregnancy, or to give up the child and all related obligations through adoption.

Males that don't want kids- At the mercy of the choice of the mother. If she decides to bring the pregnancy to term and keep the child the father is automatically financially obligated to the child.

This is an unfair. Men should have the right to give up the rights to the child and the related obligations as women do, via adoption.

A particular person's morals are not the basis of laws. Some people find homosexuality immoral, some find interracial marriage immoral, etc. I am not trying to convince you to adopt my beliefs I want you to acknowledge that I have the more intellectually consistent position. Laws should be based on fairness and intellectual consistency.

Edit- When a man wants to keep the child he is powerless to do so. The woman has the full and unilateral choice. Which is fine its, her body, but its not her money, and thus child support payments should be conditional on the acceptance of the father.

[PHX_Phan]

Your argument would hold water if there weren't too many dead beat dads around

Just a thought, but there would be significantly fewer 'deadbeat dads' if men had more say in the matter. The point he is making is that women have a choice after conception, men do not.

If the father wants to keep the baby and plans to raise it, should the woman be forced to carry out the pregnancy? I mean her egg, her responsibility, right?

[MavsSuperFan]

I understand the logic.. Making it fair on both sides.. But she's the one who has to get the baby torn out of her physically. She's the one who will cry over that experience and feel guilt for the rest of her life.

While we get to skip away scot free.

A little unfair if you ask me.

No you don't there is this thing in America called child support. You will pay for the next 18 years based on her decision.

Unless a man is a total loser and doesn't have a job where his wages can't be garnished, he can't get away from child support.

[tpols]

No you don't there is this thing in America called child support. You will pay for the next 18 years based on her decision.

Unless a man is a total loser and doesn't have a job where his wages can't be garnished, he can't get away from child support.
What I'm saying is this..

A woman and a man discover their unexpectedly having a kid. Both their faults for banging. Both should have a choice in keeping or not keeping the kid.

But if the guy says no, which he obviously will, that's all he has to do.

If the woman says no to keeping it, she has to actually do something about it. You don't see why women would be more hesitant to say no?

[Balla_Status]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/john-andrew-welden-kill-girlfriend-fetus_n_3284959.html



To start off with I am a liberal and I support a woman's right to choose. In America we allow abortions up to about 20-24 weeks (depending on your state), which is about the time the fetus achieves viability outside the womb. I support this, as I believe a woman has the right to choose and I see a huge difference between early term abortion and late term abortion.

One of my pet peeves is double standards. Why is that if 2 people have consensual sex the female gets to choose whether or not she becomes a mother and the male has no choice over whether he becomes a father? Having a child before you are financially ready for it can be devastating and even if you are an unwanted child is a huge liability. The obvious retort is to say well you should have kept it in your pants, but why is that an appropriate response when telling a woman she should have kept her legs shut is not?

Take a guy like Terrell Owens, I am assuming he didn't want the women he had consensual sex with to bring their pregnancies to term. Regardless this choice was striped from him and now he has to pay child support. If he was poor and the women didn't want to bring his child to term they would have the ability to abort the pregnancy regardless of his wishes. Men should be given the option to financially opt out of the responsibilities of fatherhood.

I totally agree with this. If a woman can absolve the responsibility of a child, so should a man.

[Balla_Status]

If you're willing to have sex then you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of the potential outcomes.

"As a man..."

Being a MAN means taking responsibility for your actions. :facepalm

Woman want to be treated as equals though so they should take responsibility for their actions as well. I agree that responsibility should be taken.

But the law today (allowing abortions) doesn't make it so.

[MavsSuperFan]

What I'm saying is this..

A woman and a man discover their unexpectedly having a kid. Both their faults for banging. Both should have a choice in keeping or not keeping the kid.

But if the guy says no, which he obviously will, that's all he has to do.

If the woman says no to keeping it, she has to actually do something about it. You don't see why women would be more hesitant to say no?

Absolutely, which is why I am pro choice and support a woman's right to obtain an abortion up to about 20-24 weeks depending on the state she resides in. I also support a woman's right to give the child up for adoption.

I understand how devastating motherhood can be to a female not yet ready for it. The statics are clear and conclusive on this issue. My problem is that this same choice is denied for males.

I also disagree that all men will obviously choose not to be fathers. I think many men want to be fathers. I know I do. Most responsible men are waiting until they are in a financially stable situation.

[Balla_Status]

Nope, doesn't matter if you think it's fair or not. Laws also are not fair. This is a WOMENS RIGHTS issue. Men don't carry the child nor do they raise it for the majority of it's life. There are so many men that run away and aren't held accountable that it's sad.

With your logic, a man could go around and impregnate 10 women and because he can't support children due to him being a deadbeat and an idiot, then he gets let off the hook. Your opinion is clearly biased.

With your logic a woman can get impregnanted by 10 dudes and abort each one. Then gets let off the hook with an abortion.

[Balla_Status]

Because raising a child on your own is something that no one should go through, regardless of gender.

How would you like it if someone f*cked you and then left you with 18 years of raising a child? Then you have to deal with the emotional stress of debating whether you want to keep a life or take it away. You can't comprehend what that feels like. Do you know how much it costs to raise a child? Well over a million dollars. Child support payments ARE NOTHING in comparison. Men should consider themselves lucky that they don't have to pay the actual amount.

Then the woman shouldn't have ****ed a dumbass.

[macmac]

Then the woman shouldn't have ****ed a dumbass.

Or the dumbass shouldn't have fukked the woman? Why should the woman be held to a higher moral standard?

[Balla_Status]

Or the dumbass shouldn't have fukked the woman? Why should the woman be held to a higher moral standard?

I'm just saying it goes both ways.

Women that bitch about their baby daddy not paying child support/not being there annoy me. Shouldn't have ****ed the dude.

[IamRAMBO24]

Let's break this down with logic:

Premise 1: a man should have the right to choose not to support the baby because a woman has a right to choose whether or not she has the baby.

This is a moral issue. The reason why the woman should have her right is because it is her body. We can all agree to this right? Therefore, the reason why she chooses to have the baby is because she believes the baby should deserve the chance to live. That is her choice. The man has no say in this.

Should he then support the baby if she has chosen to keep the baby? Again, another moral dilemma. Should fathers be responsible for their children? It is her right to carry on with the pregnancy, but once the kid is born, it is no longer a fetus, but a living human being.

So the man now only has 2 decisions: either be a dead beat dad or be a real man.

[ace23]

Or the dumbass shouldn't have fukked the woman? Why should the woman be held to a higher moral standard?
She has the option to abort -- the man does not. If she didn't want to support the child, she should have had an abortion.

[macmac]

She has the option to abort -- the man does not. If she didn't want to support the child, she should have had an abortion.

Some people don't think it's morally right to have an abortion. And you can't take that away from them. It's funny you guys are all pro choice yet want to take the woman's choice away? Lol

And the woman is forced to raise the child. So the man is forced to pay for child support. Or they both can abandon the child and give up their responsibilities and be pieces of shits

[Balla_Status]

And it's funny that those same "right to choose" people won't let me choose what the **** I want to do with my money.

[macmac]

And it's funny that those same "right to choose" people won't let me choose what the **** I want to do with my money.


You can't do what you want with your money. You have to declare your money. You have to pay taxes with your money.

I can have you killed with my money. That's not what choice means. You live in a society. Some of your choices impede on other people's rights and that's when it becomes an issue.

[lpublic_enemyl]

Yeah, and then the father is stuck paying child support for a kid he never wanted for 18 years.

As a man you should be able to go on record with the county or state or whatever before the baby is born and say that you wanted an abortion and the mother refused. Then you are legally off the hook for child support.
lol if u get a girl pregnant it's ur responsibly too

[MavsSuperFan]

Let's break this down with logic:

Premise 1: a man should have the right to choose not to support the baby because a woman has a right to choose whether or not she has the baby.

This is a moral issue. The reason why the woman should have her right is because it is her body. We can all agree to this right? Therefore, the reason why she chooses to have the baby is because she believes the baby should deserve the chance to live. That is her choice. The man has no say in this.

Should he then support the baby if she has chosen to keep the baby? Again, another moral dilemma. Should fathers be responsible for their children? It is her right to carry on with the pregnancy, but once the kid is born, it is no longer a fetus, but a living human being.

So the man now only has 2 decisions: either be a dead beat dad or be a real man.

Your premise misses the important point that women can choose to give a child up for adoption. Thus eliminating their rights to the child and any related obligation. The adoptive parents assume all of the rights and obligations. Men do not get to make this choice. If a woman keeps the child, our current laws allow her to sue the man for child support.

[MavsSuperFan]

lol if u get a girl pregnant it's ur responsibly too

Why are women given 2 chances to choose to opt out of that responsibility? They can abort or put the child up for adoption.

[oh the horror]

it is not fair because a woman has the ability to avoid the financial and legal penalties of parenthood via abortion and adoption. Men have no such choice in the matter and are automatically obligated to pay child support based on the woman's choice. It is unfair and a clear example of gender discrimination.



I can't see how men can argue against this.




What if fellas....you wanted to have the baby and she wanted to terminate? See how that goes? The woman has 100% control of this issue. And the laws to back her choice either way.

[IamRAMBO24]

Your premise misses the important point that women can choose to give a child up for adoption. Thus eliminating their rights to the child and any related obligation. The adoptive parents assume all of the rights and obligations. Men do not get to make this choice. If a woman keeps the child, our current laws allow her to sue the man for child support.

So let's break this down:

1. Women have the choice to have the baby. It is their body. (both sides agree) If both sides agree, the man has no say in this decision; he has absolutely no rights and cannot decide what a woman does to her body.

2. Once the baby is born, it is the responsibility of both the man and woman to take care of the baby from a moralistic stand point. (dead beat dads don't agree)

3. At this point,the woman has the option to give up the baby for adoption, absolving all responsibilities for both parties, therefore the woman is infringing on the rights of the man by keeping the baby.

That's actually a pretty good argument from mavssuper, but here's the kicker, if both parties agree to give up the baby for adoption, they are now infringing on the rights of tax payers. Am I right? Well don't you think that is a little f*cked up? Your sperm, your term. Why should we have to take care of YOUR kid just because YOU are too lazy to put on a condom and work a few extra hours? Even if you don't give up the kid for adoption, we are still going to have to pay for it through low income housing, food stamps, and possibly run the risk of getting robbed or killed by your kid just because your dumba*s is too weak to raise him properly.

So I would like to introduce premise 4:

Dead beat dads are infringing on MY rights as a citizen.

[kentatm]

The idea that fathers should be forced to pay child support is ridiculous to begin with. It's the womans responsibility to mate with a man who will support her. When did it become the responsibility of judges and politicians to enforce that? If a woman sleeps with a bum guy who walks out on his kid, that's her problem. Without the laws I'm sure she'd be a little slower to sleep with random slobs off the street.

you're wrong and you come off like a selfish a selfish prick with a stance like that

(as do all the people in this thread agreeing with it)

[PleezeBelieve]

This very issue will be the next great civil rights issue. Don't know when it will come to fruition but it's on the way. There are several online father-male groups who promote pro-father rights.

With the advancement of women in the workplace it's only a matter of time before the courts in this country will be held accountable for their ancient practices when it comes to laying the hammer down on men in child support, child custody, and alimony issues.

[NoGunzJustSkillz]

what does this mean for 'phase 2' of the avengers?

[ALBballer]

Personally I'm against abortions and would never advise anyone to get one. With that said, I don't think I have the right to tell other women what they can and can't do with their body. And I do agree with your premise that men are treated unfairly because they have no say with the matter. However, if men are given the ability to financially opt out of child support there is a great chance rest of society will be burderned with this financial responsibility and that is even a bigger injustice.

[IamRAMBO24]

MavsSuperFan owning this thread. :applause:

Far from it. To "own" an argument, you have to refute every logical premise until the opposition can't argue anymore.

There is a new bad boy in town: if dead beat dads are forgoing their obligation to their children, then they are infringing on the rights of every american.

That in and of itself is a greater travesty than some lazy dude unwilling to stand by his morals and be a real man.

Compare to the rights of a dead beat daddy, I'll take the rights of millions of tax payers any day.

[IamRAMBO24]

Welfare cost is already in the trillions. Imagine if dead beat dads can forgo their responsibilty because of some fallacious "rights" argument.

You can double that amount because a plethora of single moms will end up on welfare to make ends meet.

If the parents choose adoption and the child does not find a foster home, you can add a couple more billion dollars to that figure.

If you have a kid, take care of your own; this is not only a moral issue but a tax payer's rights issue as well.

Why should tax payers have to take care of your kids just because you are too much of a coward to do it on your own?

[IamRAMBO24]

No. He is owning this thread.

In your opinion Mr. dead beat dad.

[IamRAMBO24]

I don't take your arguments seriously, they are silly. So please, stop.

Of course you don't. You're a dead beat dad (or future one) with absolutely no sense of morals. You have no ethical need to support a child because your broke a*s is too much of a puusssy to be a real man and do what us men are naturally bred to do: take care of our sh*t.

You want to push the burden onto society and the girl; this whole "rights" argument is nothing more than a cop out to rationalize a pathetic excuse to absolve a responsibility you should take on.

Go ahead and think like a loser; for the rest of us, we know what we have to do when we are responsible for the life of an innocent child.

[IamRAMBO24]

tl;dr

MavsSuperFan

Why can't you come up with your own rebuttal instead of rooting for someone like a cheerleader skank?

[Bandito]

The idea that fathers should be forced to pay child support is ridiculous to begin with. It's the womans responsibility to mate with a man who will support her. When did it become the responsibility of judges and politicians to enforce that? If a woman sleeps with a bum guy who walks out on his kid, that's her problem. Without the laws I'm sure she'd be a little slower to sleep with random slobs off the street.
so you're tellling me a man has the right to be irresponsible after getting the woman pregnant? The man is stuck passing child support but at least they get out of having to take care of the kid if they want too. The woman is the person who takes care of the kid sometimes by herself while the man is out getting other women pregnant.

[kNicKz]

The problem with pro choice arguers is that they think of everyone but the baby

[MavsSuperFan]

so you're tellling me a man has the right to be irresponsible after getting the woman pregnant? The man is stuck passing child support but at least they get out of having to take care of the kid if they want too. The woman is the person who takes care of the kid sometimes by herself while the man is out getting other women pregnant.

I have never argued that women should be forced to do anything. I think men deserve a choice of whether they become a parent after conception, because women are given this choice under law. I think genders should be equal under the law. If one gender has a choice, the equivalent should be given to the other.

Women can and should make any decision they want. If they want to get an abortion, screw what the man wants. If the want to have a baby screw what the man wants. She has made her choice and should alone bear the consequences.

My only problem is her decision has a financial impact on the male. Men deserve the chance to sever the relationship with the child in an adoption like procedure where the rights are forfeited to either the birth mother or adoptive parents. This would make the genders equal, since women have the right to choose not to become parents after conception and men do not. A woman's right to choose can and should co-exist with a man's right to choose.

Anything less is superiority not equality.

[MavsSuperFan]

Of course you don't. You're a dead beat dad (or future one) with absolutely no sense of morals. You have no ethical need to support a child because your broke a*s is too much of a puusssy to be a real man and do what us men are naturally bred to do: take care of our sh*t.

You want to push the burden onto society and the girl; this whole "rights" argument is nothing more than a cop out to rationalize a pathetic excuse to absolve a responsibility you should take on.

Go ahead and think like a loser; for the rest of us, we know what we have to do when we are responsible for the life of an innocent child.

Wanting equal rights under the law doesn't make him a deadbeat. Thats like saying to a black veteran after WWII that wanting to be apart of the GI bill would make him a deadbeat because it would cost the government money.

People want to be treated fairly under the law and not discriminated against because of a factor outside their control like gender. Currently we give a choice to females of whether or not they become parents after conception. Do you disagree with this fact?

We don't give that choice to males, and further males can and are committed to financial obligations for 18 years based on the decision making of females. No American should be at the mercy of another human's decision making.

Do you disagree that current laws give women rights that men do not have?

[MavsSuperFan]

Welfare cost is already in the trillions. Imagine if dead beat dads can forgo their responsibilty because of some fallacious "rights" argument.

You can double that amount because a plethora of single moms will end up on welfare to make ends meet.

If the parents choose adoption and the child does not find a foster home, you can add a couple more billion dollars to that figure.

If you have a kid, take care of your own; this is not only a moral issue but a tax payer's rights issue as well.

Why should tax payers have to take care of your kids just because you are too much of a coward to do it on your own?

And social security, medicare and medicaid are currently the biggest drivers of the deficit and will be an even larger portion in the future. American's paid into the system we are owed that money.

Let me break this down for you.

1 Women have the right to choose to become parents after conception. Agree?

2. Men do not have the right to choose to become parents after conception. Agree?

3. Laws should not discriminate on the grounds of something an individual cannot control, such as gender. Agree?

4. Giving one gender a choice the other does not have is discrimination. Agree?

if you agree with all four points, how would you solve this inequality?

[Cangri]

Like it or not MavsSuperFan is talking sense. If both parties have consensual sex, both parties should have equal rights to decide.
The man didn't forced the woman to have sex without protection, she is equally guilty.

[dr. bob's bunch]

Provided that both parties had a discussion either prior to or after the pregnancy event where a decision was agreed upon by both parties to terminate the pregnancy, put the resulting offspring up for adoption or keep the resulting offspring, and this decision was subsequently carried out, then there is no issue. However, if said discussion did not take place or did not result in agreement as to abortion, adoption or parenthood, I believe the argument that a man should have the option to opt out of parenthood has merit. And I say this as a man who pays child support voluntarily to my ex-wife by check by the 5th of every month, and can (sort of) afford to do so thanks to being employed by Child Support Enforcement and establishing and enforcing other non-custodial parents' child support orders for a living.

[IamRAMBO24]

And social security, medicare and medicaid are currently the biggest drivers of the deficit and will be an even larger portion in the future. American's paid into the system we are owed that money.

Let me break this down for you.

1 Women have the right to choose to become parents after conception. Agree?

2. Men do not have the right to choose to become parents after conception. Agree?

3. Laws should not discriminate on the grounds of something an individual cannot control, such as gender. Agree?

4. Giving one gender a choice the other does not have is discrimination. Agree?

if you agree with all four points, how would you solve this inequality?

1. The women has the right to choose because it is her body.

2. The man has no right because it is not his body.

3. This does not discriminate against men because it is within her right to choose whether or not she has a baby.

4. Therefore, your conclusion is fallacious due to points 1-2.

[IamRAMBO24]

Like it or not MavsSuperFan is talking sense. If both parties have consensual sex, both parties should have equal rights to decide.
The man didn't forced the woman to have sex without protection, she is equally guilty.

He has not presented an undeniable premise yet, so therefore, all his arguments are fallacious.

I have to admit, he is a lot smarter than most of the posters in here though. Dude knows how to tool his argument around logic. I'm impress.

[IamRAMBO24]

Wanting equal rights under the law doesn't make him a deadbeat. Thats like saying to a black veteran after WWII that wanting to be apart of the GI bill would make him a deadbeat because it would cost the government money.

People want to be treated fairly under the law and not discriminated against because of a factor outside their control like gender. Currently we give a choice to females of whether or not they become parents after conception. Do you disagree with this fact?

We don't give that choice to males, and further males can and are committed to financial obligations for 18 years based on the decision making of females. No American should be at the mercy of another human's decision making.

Do you disagree that current laws give women rights that men do not have?

Arguing about why woman has more rights when it comes to birth is the same thing as complaining about handicaps getting more rights than normal people.

Both are under special circumstances; the woman needs special care with her child the same way a handicap needs special care with his short comings. Both are at a disadvantage and needs assistance.

This why the woman should have more rights than a man when it comes to this situation. It is not being unfair; it is leveling the playing field so a woman can function in society the same way a handicap needs help to function.

[Jyap9675]

Agreed with Mavsfan.

[IamRAMBO24]

Agreed with Mavsfan.

He's a smart guy and using a logical stance, so if you are not versed in logic, his position sounds reasonable if you FEEL as if it fits your stance (meaning you're probably a dead beat dad, or worst, a future one).

As far as logic goes, dude still has 2 illogical premises:

1. He believes the man should have the same right as a woman although the woman has a greater right than him since it is her body.

2. He believes mandatory child support is infringing on his rights as a citizen, but he won't acknowledge the failure to carry out this obligation is an infringement on the rights of all tax payers. So are dead beat dad's rights more important than society as a whole? Absolutely not. Only the POTUS would think his needs are more important than the rest of society. Last I check, Mavs is not the POTUS and should not act so condescending on the issue.

For an argument to be full proof and entirely correct, it has to be argue with certainty.

If Mavs can come up with another logical premise on why the rights of dead beat dads are more important than tax payers, then I will cave into his argument. As is, the rights of the majority is far more important than the rights of a few (even if Mavs happens to be the POTUS).

[bmulls]

1. The women has the right to choose because it is her body.

2. The man has no right because it is not his body.

3. This does not discriminate against men because it is within her right to choose whether or not she has a baby.

4. Therefore, your conclusion is fallacious due to points 1-2.

:facepalm

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or just seriously fcking stupid. I'm not even going to argue with you, Mavs has already torn you to shreds repeatedly.

Just stop. If you're trolling, way to go, you got a reaction out of me. If not, kid, you are no where near as smart as you think you are. It makes me cringe reading the shit you write and I actually feel embarrassed for you.

[IamRAMBO24]

:facepalm

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or just seriously fcking stupid. I'm not even going to argue with you, Mavs has already torn you to shreds repeatedly.

Just stop. If you're trolling, way to go, you got a reaction out of me. If not, kid, you are no where near as smart as you think you are. It makes me cringe reading the shit you write and I actually feel embarrassed for you.

It's called logic dumbsh*t. Every point is broken down to a premise. If one premise is wrong, then the conclusion is wrong. If all premises are correct, then the conclusion could not be false.

When you have a logical discussion, you get down straight to the nitty gritty points; it alleviates mischaracterization of the point, it only focuses on the points, and it does not over burden you with fallacies or emotional appeal.

For example, since you are not arguing from a logical standpoint, your personal attacks can taint the argument if someone else already agrees with you based on what they feel is correct or if they simply hate me as a poster. In logic, we call this an ad hoc:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A as evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making.
3. Therefore, Person B tries to use insults (which has no bearing on truth) as a premise, which is fallacious.


Meaning you haven't added sh*t to this argument other than whine like a little b*tch. Go away and let the big boys play.

[IamRAMBO24]

Yeah, and then the father is stuck paying child support for a kid he never wanted for 18 years.

As a man you should be able to go on record with the county or state or whatever before the baby is born and say that you wanted an abortion and the mother refused. Then you are legally off the hook for child support.

Your premise: a man should have the right to voice his opinion on an abortion if he does not want to pay for it.

Counter argument: a man has no say because it is not his body.

Don't just sit there and cry like a child, if someone refutes your premise, you have to come up with a better one.

[bmulls]

Your premise: a man should have the right to voice his opinion on an abortion if he does not want to pay for it.

Counter argument: a man has no say because it is not his body.

Don't just sit there and cry like a child, if someone refutes your premise, you have to come up with a better one.

This debate has nothing to do with men forcing women to have abortions you stupid fck stick. Nobody has ever said that. You are trying to conflate two separate issues in a way only a half-retard like yourself could possibly think makes any sense.

The debate is whether a man should be forced to pay child support for a child he does not want brought into the world. A woman has the choice, via abortion or adoption, to become a parent or not become a parent. She can absolve herself of all legal and financial responsibility of the child. Because a man can not choose to have an abortion, his right to choose parenthood is denied.

This is gender discrimination.

We are arguing for the right to choose parenthood for men, not the right to force women to have abortions.

Do you understand now? This is as clear as it can possibly be.

[IamRAMBO24]

This debate has nothing to do with men forcing women to have abortions you stupid fck stick. Nobody has ever said that. You are trying to conflate two separate issues in a way only a half-retard like yourself could possibly think makes any sense.

The debate is whether a man should be forced to pay child support for a child he does not want brought into the world. A woman has the choice, via abortion or adoption, to become a parent or not become a parent. She can absolve herself of all legal and financial responsibility of the child. Because a man can not choose to have an abortion, his right to choose parenthood is denied.

This is gender discrimination.

We are arguing for the right to choose parenthood for men, not the right to force women to have abortions.

Do you understand now? This is as clear as it can possibly be.

Stop yelling and argue like a true gentlemen.

Abortion:

The man has no say in this part. You said the man should have some legal document stating he does not want the baby, thus absolving all legal responsibility, but that's black mail. He has no say whatsoever since it is her body.


Adoption:

Once the baby is born, the man is automatically his legal guardian. Both parties can then either give up the baby for adoption, and as you argue, if the woman disagrees on this, it should be entirely her responsibility.

Am I correct in your premises?

If I am, then here is my counter argument on adoption: the man is now burdening society; if every dead beat dad decides to abandon their child, guess who is going to pick up the tab? Tax payers. We're talking about rights here right? Well aren't dead beat dads infringing on tax payer's rights if a plethora of kids end up in state care and millions of single moms have to resort to welfare to make ends meet? How is that fair to the rest of society just because a bunch of guys are too lazy to put on a condom?

[IamRAMBO24]

[QUOTE=bmulls]

This is gender discrimination.

:oldlol:

Gender discrimination? Some idiot even claims this is the next civil rights movement. So a father who cops out on his child (a hopeless kid who loves him) is now some hero worthy of being compare to MLK?

:roll:

[Jyap9675]

He's a smart guy and using a logical stance, so if you are not versed in logic, his position sounds reasonable if you FEEL as if it fits your stance (meaning you're probably a dead beat dad, or worst, a future one).

As far as logic goes, dude still has 2 illogical premises:

1. He believes the man should have the same right as a woman although the woman has a greater right than him since it is her body.

2. He believes mandatory child support is infringing on his rights as a citizen, but he won't acknowledge the failure to carry out this obligation is an infringement on the rights of all tax payers. So are dead beat dad's rights more important than society as a whole? Absolutely not. Only the POTUS would think his needs are more important than the rest of society. Last I check, Mavs is not the POTUS and should not act so condescending on the issue.

For an argument to be full proof and entirely correct, it has to be argue with certainty.

If Mavs can come up with another logical premise on why the rights of dead beat dads are more important than tax payers, then I will cave into his argument. As is, the rights of the majority is far more important than the rights of a few (even if Mavs happens to be the POTUS).

Dude, I am a 22 year old college student and this "situation" does not apply to me. However, I can see both sides of the story:

1. Men want more say in the final outcome and it shouldn't rest entirely on the woman to decide the outcome of the pregnancy.
2. Women has to have the "final say" because it is her body.

Both sides have some merit and it is a really tough issue. Overall, I agree with Mavsfan because, I am more convinced from the way he organised his reasoning more than yours.

I believe that there are genuine men out there who is just not ready to have a child but are forced to because in the end the woman has the final say to the matter. In this case it will be unfair to label these men "dead beat dads" because they did not want the child in the first place. If the situation is reversed and the man actually wanted to keep the child and the woman refused, wouldn't it be unfair that the woman has the ultimate decision?

But should women have the final say just because they it is their body? I mean both parties (assuming that it is not rape), committed to the act that conceived the child. I think there needs to be a case of valuing this leverage of "women having the child inside their body" towards women having the final say with the matter.

With pro-life and women's rights campaigns everywhere along with the negative connotation attached to "dead beat dads", it could be hard for men to have a say with the matter.

I know it is really tough especially when you're in that "situation" but the consequences significantly outweigh the instant gratification that you will achieve, so rubber up people :D

[IamRAMBO24]

I believe that there are genuine men out there who is just not ready to have a child but are forced to because in the end the woman has the final say to the matter. In this case it will be unfair to label these men "dead beat dads" because they did not want the child in the first place. If the situation is reversed and the man actually wanted to keep the child and the woman refused, wouldn't it be unfair that the woman has the ultimate decision?

But should women have the final say just because they it is their body? I mean both parties (assuming that it is not rape), committed to the act that conceived the child. I think there needs to be a case of valuing this leverage of "women having the child inside their body" towards women having the final say with the matter.



Yes.

It's her body. She has the final say on the outcome of the baby. If the man wants the baby, but the woman chooses to abort it, it's her body. If she wants to keep it, but the man does not want it, guess what, it's her body. Her body is her possession; she has the right to do whatever she wants to her body as long as it does not harm others.

Once the baby is born, that is a different matter. The man now has a voice in the matter since he is the legal guardian of the baby. This is the only logical premise I can agree with.

Since we are talking about rights here, the man is now infringing on the rights of tax payers, which is the reason why I cannot support his so call rights.

The question is: are the rights of men more important than society as a whole? The answer is no. I strongly disagree with this sentiment. Not only are the men infringing on the rights of every citizen of this country, but also the rights of the men who choose to fulfill their moral obligation and raise a child.

[Jyap9675]

Yes.

It's her body. She has the final say on the outcome of the baby. If the man wants the baby, but the woman chooses to abort it, it's her body. If she wants to keep it, but the man does not want it, guess what, it's her body. Her body is her possession; she has the right to do whatever she wants to her body as long as it does not harm others.

Once the baby is born, that is a different matter. The man now has a voice in the matter since he is the legal guardian of the baby. This is the only logical premise I can agree with.

Since we are talking about rights here, the man is now infringing on the rights of tax payers, which is the reason why I cannot support his so call rights.

Yes we know - it is her body, you've said that a lot of times. For you to be able to have a stronger argument you're going to have to move away from "it's her body" because everyone here already know that and bringing it up repetitively will not convince anyone to agree with your argument.

With the man "infringing on the rights of tax payers", well he doesn't really have a choice because the woman has the final decision. If the man knows that he can not pay child support in the future - he would elect for the woman to have an abortion, but as your argument says - "its her body".

[Jyap9675]

The question is: are the rights of men more important than society as a whole? The answer is no. I strongly disagree with this sentiment. Not only are the men infringing on the rights of every citizen of this country, but also the rights of the men who choose to fulfill their moral obligation and raise a child.

Can you see that women having the final say in the matter leads to your flawed hypothesis?

[IamRAMBO24]

With the man "infringing on the rights of tax payers", well he doesn't really have a choice because the woman has the final decision. If the man knows that he can not pay child support in the future - he would elect for the woman to have an abortion, but as your argument says - "its her body".

1. It's her body. That's an undeniable premise. So why should a man have the legal right to black mail the girl on abortion issues?

2. Once he gets a girl pregnant, he has no more rights. The only rights he had were washed away when he decided not to put on that condom.

3. Therefore, he has no legal rights to dictate whether or not she should have a baby (including documents that are nothing more than black mail).

4. The only time he has a say in the matter is when the baby is born, but then he is now infringing on the rights of tax payers.


Can you see that women having the final say in the matter leads to your flawed hypothesis?

It seems like your argument is to allow men full rights on the matter, including dictating whether or not a woman should be allow to have an abortion, and infringing on the rights of tax payers.

[Jyap9675]

1. It's her body. That's an undeniable premise. So why should a man have the legal right to black mail the girl on abortion issues?

2. Once he gets a girl pregnant, he has no more rights. The only rights he had were washed away when he decided not to put on that condom.

3. Therefore, he has no legal rights to dictate whether or not she should have a baby (including documents that are nothing more than black mail).

4. The only time he has a say in the matter is when the baby is born, but then he is now infringing on the rights of tax payers.


It is getting tiring repetitively pointing out points that posters from the last 6 pages have raised. For points 1 and 2, you are disregarding the fact that both parties contributed to the conception of the child but it seems like you are saying that the man is purely at fault.

Points 2, 3 and 4, wouldn't matter if both parties had a say on the outcome, but then again you will go back to "its her body" argument that you have said repetitively.



It seems like your argument is to allow men full rights on the matter, including dictating whether or not a woman should be allow to have an abortion, and infringing on the rights of tax payers.

No, my argument is for men to have a "say in the matter". The infringement of the rights of tax payers is the consequence of men not having a final say whether to keep the child or not.

[bmulls]

Stop yelling and argue like a true gentlemen.

Abortion:

The man has no say in this part. You said the man should have some legal document stating he does not want the baby, thus absolving all legal responsibility, but that's black mail. He has no say whatsoever since it is her body.


Adoption:

Once the baby is born, the man is automatically his legal guardian. Both parties can then either give up the baby for adoption, and as you argue, if the woman disagrees on this, it should be entirely her responsibility.

Am I correct in your premises?

If I am, then here is my counter argument on adoption: the man is now burdening society; if every dead beat dad decides to abandon their child, guess who is going to pick up the tab? Tax payers. We're talking about rights here right? Well aren't dead beat dads infringing on tax payer's rights if a plethora of kids end up in state care and millions of single moms have to resort to welfare to make ends meet? How is that fair to the rest of society just because a bunch of guys are too lazy to put on a condom?

:biggums:

What in the fck are you even talking about? You are either misconstruing the argument on purpose or you are the biggest tool I have ever seen.

For the hundredth time nobody has ever once argued that the man has any say whatsoever with regards to abortion. The 7 pages of debate in this thread concern the issue of child support after the baby is born. If the man did not want the child to be born, he should not be forced to pay child support.

Second, before you strawman the shit out of that statement, nobody is saying that a dad can just walk out on his kids after they are born. If the father does not make it known BEFORE the child is born that he does not want to be a parent then he should be considered a willing father and thus responsible for child support.

The entire crux of this debate is the right to choose parenthood. Women have this right via abortion, men do not have this right. If you think men do not deserve this right, then you are discriminating based on gender. Period. End of story.

If you do not understand this post then there is no point in any further debate.

[bmulls]

It is getting tiring repetitively pointing out points that posters from the last 6 pages have raised. For points 1 and 2, you are disregarding the fact that both parties contributed to the conception of the child but it seems like you are saying that the man is purely at fault.

Points 2, 3 and 4, wouldn't matter if both parties had a say on the outcome, but then again you will go back to "its her body" argument that you have said repetitively.

No, my argument is for men to have a "say in the matter". The infringement of the rights of tax payers is the consequence of men not having a final say whether to keep the child or not.

There's no point. Either he already realizes he's wrong and is just arguing for the sake of arguing or he's a complete fcking idiot. He'll keep posting until everybody else gives up and then declare himself the winner.

[IamRAMBO24]

It is getting tiring repetitively pointing out points that posters from the last 6 pages have raised. For points 1 and 2, you are disregarding the fact that both parties contributed to the conception of the child but it seems like you are saying that the man is purely at fault.

Points 2, 3 and 4, wouldn't matter if both parties had a say on the outcome, but then again you will go back to "its her body" argument that you have said repetitively.



No, my argument is for men to have a "say in the matter". The infringement of the rights of tax payers is the consequence of men not having a final say whether to keep the child or not.

Clearly you don't understand the whole "it's her body" argument. If a man has the right to dictate whether or not a woman gets an abortion through legal means that say he should be absolved of all responsibility, then that is blackmail. If he has the right to forgo his obligation, then there will be many future mothers who will be pressured to get an abortion, and since they are pressured, then that legal document is infringing on her right to do whatever she wants with her body (which the both of you seem to contradict yourself by agreeing with it and disagreeing with it at thet same time). This is the reason why men have no right or say in the birth process. It is entirely up to the woman. Now once the baby is born, that is a different matter.

The both of you seem to have a hard time understanding this concept.

Yea go ahead and throw the word troll around; it seems like the new catch phrase for someone trying to have a discussion (which makes it even dumber since this is a discussion forum).

[IamRAMBO24]

bmulls that response always applies to you. Stop acting like a cry baby and come up with a better rebuttal. That's how discussions work moron.

[IamRAMBO24]

And how the f*ck would it make sense if the legal document is "consensual." If it is consensual, then why would she have the baby in the first place? What woman in her right mind would say to a man, "Ok I'm going to have this baby, but it's ok if you don't help me out with any money." The law is put in place to make sure men take up the responsibility because they would just leave the girl hang up drying if nobody forced them to do it. It is a moral and just law; f*ck your stupid rights. You no longer have any rights when you have that big of a responsibility to take care of.

[shlver]

IamRambo your argument is based on the fact that a woman can't be told what to do with her body. It's her body so she can do what she wants with it. Wrong. I don't get to choose where my tax money goes even though is MY MONEY.

macmac nailed it earlier. He was talking about money but the same applies to a woman and this silly idea that she gets to do what she wants with her body simply because it's hers.
No. Iamrambo's point is legitimate. There are serious ethical issues when a man has a personal stake in something that is physically attached to a woman's body.

[shlver]

A woman shouldn't be forced into having an abortion. It's been said many times in this thread.
So why did you say "wrong" in all caps?
Edit:Nvm you said money in all caps.

[shlver]

The wrong was said in response to IamRambo's point that a man has no say in the matter because it's the woman's body and she can do whatever she wants with it simply because it's hers. That is the basis of his whole argument. Then he goes on a rant about how if the fathers doesn't take care of the child we the tax payers are stuck raising the kid financially.

I seriously lol'd when I read that.
So explain your reasoning. Why is that wrong?

[shlver]

Because what she does with her body affects someone else in this case the father. If it affects him financially and emotinally then he should have the right to voice his opinion. What she chooses to do with her body will completely change the life of another human being.

It was said in the first post of the thread.
Well anyone can voice their opinion. Be more specific on his rights.

[shlver]

If you had to guess what rights I was talking about what would you say? Just a quick guess. I'll put my answer in white.

Men should have the right to choose whether they become parents or not. Women have this right, why not men?

You will probably better understand my point if you read the thread.
I think the explanation has been quite clear. Whether you think it's fair is a non issue, there are very serious ethical situations that could arise where the man has a stake in something that is physically attached to the women's body. I reiterate this point because it's important. Should his contribution during conception translate into influence over what she does with her body? No it shouldn't because of the aforementioned ethical issues.

[IamRAMBO24]

I understand and I also think it's important. But women having the right to choose if they want to become parents and men not having that same right is is definitely an issue. That's what this debate is all about.

Define "ethical issues" and "ethical situations".

It is an ethical issue because the man is pressuring her decision on whether or not she should have the baby; nobody should legally have the right to tell what a person does to their body.

If a man says, "Hey hun, guess what, I have this paper that says I don't have to pay child support," that will hugely influence her decision on whether or not she will have the baby. Even if she wants to have the baby, she is now thinking twice about whether or not she should go forward, and that is wrong on so many ethical levels.

And I don't understand how this can be consensual. There is no way both parties will agree one person should take on full responsibility and the other be scot free; usually if it is consensual, then the girl would abort the baby, so the premise is nothing more than a misuse of logic. Basically, if a man has the right to absolve all responsibility if he disagrees with having a baby and the woman does not, then that is black mail. I really don't see how else you can define it.

Shlver, glad to see another smart poster understand the ethical dilemma behind this all (which is my main stance against it, but I still haven't presented it yet since these ISH posters have absolutely no sense of morals whatsoever - sad:banghead: ).

[IamRAMBO24]

The wrong was said in response to IamRambo's point that a man has no say in the matter because it's the woman's body and she can do whatever she wants with it simply because it's hers. That is the basis of his whole argument. Then he goes on a rant about how if the fathers doesn't take care of the child we the tax payers are stuck raising the kid financially.

I seriously lol'd when I read that.

Why would you lol'd at the burden being pushed on to taxpayers? It is. Guess who has to pick up dead beat dad's slack if his balls are too small to make ends meet? Tax payers. Dead beat dad wants to leave the kid hanging and have mommy take care of the whole deal: tax payers will pick up his tab through food stamps, low income housing, single mother's welfare, etc. If dead beat dad wants to put up the kid for adoption, state care foster homes = tax payers (because nobody wants his ugly a*s kid). Dead beat dad's foster kid will possibly end up as a criminal (low income, single mother children are more at risk of being a criminal than any other group), so in the end, not only are dead beat dads hurting the pockets of tax payers, but they are making their lives more miserable as result because sooner or later their kids (through neglect) will end up killing or robbing an outstanding member of society.

How is this NOT infringing on society as a whole? Please explain.

[Balla_Status]

You know...you can bring up all this BS about women having abortion because it's "her body" but I still say it's selfish and wrong to have an abortion unless you have a legitimate health reason or you got raped. I don't care if she goes through emotional issues while pregnant. I don't care if her ****** gets raped. That's temporary. Because you aren't ready to have a child or it will **** up your life is pretty selfish as well.

And you know what, I realize that these babies will be supported by taxpayer's money and I'd be ok with that (stop the bullshit war spending though). You can't be pro-life and be against welfare. Charities and churches aren't going to be able to take the full load.

[IamRAMBO24]

You know...you can bring up all this BS about women having abortion because it's "her body" but I still say it's selfish and wrong to have an abortion unless you have a legitimate health reason or you got raped. I don't care if she goes through emotional issues while pregnant. I don't care if her ****** gets raped. That's temporary. Because you aren't ready to have a child or it will **** up your life is pretty selfish as well.

And you know what, I realize that these babies will be supported by taxpayer's money and I'd be ok with that (stop the bullshit war spending though). You can't be pro-life and be against welfare. Charities and churches aren't going to be able to take the full load.

I'm against abortion, but what a woman does to her body is up to her. This is an undeniable premise.

At least you guys are supporting the right to life, these dead beat dad's are supporting, well, I don't know what the f*ck they are standing for: their premise has no morals, no ethical standards, and they are talking about "fairness and rights" over an issue that involves the body of a woman. Truely this is one of the most twisted discussions I've seen on ISH.

[Dolphin]

I pray the majority of men in the real world are a little more mature than the people on here. "Yo, if I say I don't want it, I shouldn't have to pay yo!"

How about you put your big boy pants on and make sure you don't impregnate a chick then....it really isn't THAT hard....well for an idiot it might be so I guess it will be kinda hard for some of you here.

And if your beef is that maybe you will want to raise the child and the girl wants an abortion, maybe you should be an adult and make sure you're having a kid with someone who wants it AND wants it with you.

"Oh, but mistakes still happen!"....ya, they do...and life isn't fair. Live with it. When you've been treated like a possession throughout history, let's see how open you are to letting other people decide what goes on in your body.

I do, however, have to remind myself that many of you idiots are still in high school and have the brain development of a mentally retarded fish.

[PHX_Phan]

And if your beef is that maybe you will want to raise the child and the girl wants an abortion, maybe you should be an adult and make sure you're having a kid with someone who wants it AND wants it with you.


It goes both ways. A lot of these arguments seem to overlook the females role in conceiving a child. As if they are helpless in whether or not a man gets them pregnant.

[Dolphin]

It goes both ways. A lot of these arguments seem to overlook the females role in conceiving a child. As if they are helpless in whether or not a man gets them pregnant.

Yes, sometimes women do put guns to our head and force us to *** all inside dat box.

[PHX_Phan]

Why would you lol'd at the burden being pushed on to taxpayers? It is. Guess who has to pick up dead beat dad's slack if his balls are too small to make ends meet? Tax payers. Dead beat dad wants to leave the kid hanging and have mommy take care of the whole deal: tax payers will pick up his tab through food stamps, low income housing, single mother's welfare, etc. If dead beat dad wants to put up the kid for adoption, state care foster homes = tax payers (because nobody wants his ugly a*s kid). Dead beat dad's foster kid will possibly end up as a criminal (low income, single mother children are more at risk of being a criminal than any other group), so in the end, not only are dead beat dads hurting the pockets of tax payers, but they are making their lives more miserable as result because sooner or later their kids (through neglect) will end up killing or robbing an outstanding member of society.

How is this NOT infringing on society as a whole? Please explain.

The burden is already on tax payers. If dude can't pay his child support, the state pays it.

If you take out the safety net of child support, do you think a lot of these women will carry out their pregnancies? I'd bet good money a huge percentage of them would not. I actually think something like this would lead to less fatherless children and be less of a burden on the tax payers.

[PHX_Phan]

Yes, sometimes women do put guns to our head and force us to *** all inside dat box.

They are not part of the decision to use a condom? There are also more forms of contraception for females than men.

[kentatm]

And you know what, I realize that these babies will be supported by taxpayer's money and I'd be ok with that (stop the bullshit war spending though). You can't be pro-life and be against welfare. Charities and churches aren't going to be able to take the full load.

I may disagree with you on many things and even bits of this discussion but you are nails on this part. :cheers:

[shlver]

It goes both ways. A lot of these arguments seem to overlook the females role in conceiving a child. As if they are helpless in whether or not a man gets them pregnant.
It's beyond me how some of you guys can't see some of the potential abuses that could occur when a man has influence and a personal stake in something that is physically inside and attached to the body of a woman.
This concept of fairness and equality is coming up ad nauseum. It's not fair for good reasons and law isn't fair, only necessary to protect people's rights.

[Dolphin]

It's beyond me how some of you guys can't see some of the potential abuses that could occur when a man has influence and a personal stake in something that is physically inside and attached to the body of a woman.
This concept of fairness and equality is coming up ad nauseum. It's not fair for good reasons and law isn't fair, only necessary to protect people's rights.

Like I said, lot of kids in high school here. lol

[MavsSuperFan]

bump because this topic came up again.

The laws aren't the same because the situations aren't the same. The women has to carry the child inside her for 9 months, then give birth. The man doesn't have to do shit.
once again the vast majority of abortions are for social and financial reasons and not medically necessary or the result of rape or incest. I know a couple of women who have had abortions. I run in a pretty liberal group where this stuff isnt looked down upon.

None of them did it for medical reasons.

Exactly. The woman is in a unique situation. Pregnancy is not just a social circumstance, it is a medical one.

I honestly cant believe there is someone here claiming a man should be given an amnesty from providing for the child he was responsible for.


A man has every right to try and persuade the woman not to deliver his child. He can give it the ol college try. If she chooses to, that is the risk he took when he did the dirty, and hes on the hook for it.

Mavssuperfan you are doing a disservice to society when you turn the conversation to silly semantics about double standards for child bearing. Its a worthless argument and will never be a reality.
You and I disagree. there are a lot of men that are having their futures hamstrung by the decision of another person.

a female and a male both make the consensual decision to have sex. The woman has the right to make the decision of whether or not to become a parent. The male doesnt not after this initial act.


social circumstance, it is a medical one.
the vast majority of abortions are decided by social circumstances and not medical ones.